A unique way of explaining Open Source

[happybunny]

I forget the source of this idea, but I don't take credit for it, just for verbalizing it this way.

To explain Open Source to non-techies, and the unknown benefits to them, I use the Disney corporation now as an example.

The example is, the first original story line for a movie Disney ever made was "The Lion King".

Cinderalla, Robin Hood, Snow White and the 7 Dwarfs are all MAJOR hits and made Disney millions and millions of dollars, and entertained most of us as kids, and again as adults.

However, Disney in no way owns the rights to these stories, they are part of the public domain. The only story they own rights to is the Lion King.

You or I could right now, make a new version of "Beauty and the Beast" with out legal fear from Disney, because, even though they made a version already, THEY DON'T OWN the story...."we" do.

Since we have access to the "source" (=the story) and it is public domain, we can do what we want, make a better (or worse) movie and let the world enjoy our version.

The Disney movies are not released under GPL, however, meaning you cannot take their derived works and make money, but thats not the point of this post.

Anyway, I just thought I'd share that idea with everyone.

[stumbles]

Sounds nice but in my mind GPL != Public Domain, a very distinct difference.

[klackenfus]

I think it's even more simple. If I buy something legally, I have the right to do whatever I want with it because I bought it! It doesn't mean others can't buy the same things that I bought, it just means I own what I own and that you can own what you own and however we reverse engineer, copy , resell, whatever, we have the right to do so. All the GPL demands is that we show the roadmap from whence we came (aka The Source.)

[happybunny]

This was not meant to be a discussion about GPL et al, just (i thought) a new way to explain Open Source to the masses.

Delete the GPL line from my post and all will be fine.

[deathadder]

I like it, explaining it like that would definitely work with some people I know...

[klackenfus]

This was not meant to be a discussion about GPL et al, just (i thought) a new way to explain Open Source to the masses.

Oh and I quite agree! However, I think it's important that if we're going to bring that message to the masses, that we all agree on what that message really means.

[stumbles]

Well if your going to use public domain as an analogy for GPL (which I think is incorrect), I do not see how it can't evolve (or de-evolve) into a discussion about GPL.

True with public domain, in your example Snow White, no one owns the story. However, like Disney they do own the rights to the material they created from it. Things like how the characters look as an example. So if you created your own Snow White story and your characters looked exactly like Disney's you can be sure to get a call from them. In any case with public domain your are not obligated to contribute back when you distribute that newly created material.

That is significantly different with the GPL when you distribute your changes. You are obligated to make the underlying changes available and that's the issue I have with your analogy.

Instead of trying to draw analogies for the uninitiated it would IMO be better just to outline what they can do versus what they cannot do with some proprietary piece of software.

Better yet. Get them to read the EULAs and then get them to read the GPL. Yeah I know hardly anyone reads a EULA but you should see their reactions when they do. Mostly their reactions are, "Did I just read what I thought I read?". Or to put it more bluntly.... man, that sucks. That IMO would be a much better contrast.

[deathadder]

The main problem I see with getting people to read EULA's and the GPL is, people reading EULA's or the GPL.

Unless your able to explain it in a manner that the person your talking too understand then it doesn't matter how many times they read EULA's / the GPL or how many fairy tales you use it'll just be words.

For instance I would probably use the Snow White explain when trying to explain the GPL to my grandparents. However I have no problems with explaining it like most here would talk about it, to my parents.

[klackenfus]

Let me take a stab at a better analogy. The whole open source thing is like buying a car. Once you own that car, you have the right to modify it any way that you want and to then sell it. Oh and if you heavily modify a car and sell it, you generally will provide all the original documentation you received on the car along with what you did to modify it.

On the other hand closed source software is kind of like leasing a car. Sure, you get to drive it anywhere that you want but you can't modify it in any way. As long as you make your payments, you get to drive it for the terms of your contract but it's never really your car.

[Calipso]

Why not use recipes?
You go to a restaurant, they sell you a piece of cake, you only get the cake. No recipe. You buy a cook book, you get the recipes. You can change an ingredient, to improve the original. You can then, if I'm not mistaken, sell your own book with your new and improved recipes.

[klackenfus]

I think recipes works very well!

[Exodus2001]

95% of people that use open source it's "free beer". :p

5% think it means cake with recipe.

Not trying to be negative, but it's the truth.

The cake with the recipe is a good analogy of what OSS actually is. Good thinking, I'm going to use that one in the future.

Is the "cake with the recipe" idea going to be released GPLv2 or GPLv3?

[Calipso]

Recipes make it a lot easier to explain because it is something everyone can relate to. Everyone at some point in their lives has used a recipe. Try to use words like, program code, and you just get blank stares. People don't really know how software gets created. How a cake gets baked, is another story.


Is the "cake with the recipe" idea going to be released GPLv2 or GPLv3?
Well of course the idea of actually using this analogy is patented so Im going to be expecting royalties of course ;)